ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Accuracy of large language models in interpreting urological clinical guidelines: a comparative study with expert evaluation.
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored to supporting evidence-based decision-making in urology, but their accuracy in interpreting and applying clinical guidelines remains uncertain. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the ability of LLMs to interpret and apply clinical guidelines across the full spectrum of major urological cancers. Design: This expert-validated study evaluated six configurations of three top LLMs (Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT) using 25 structured questions for each of the seven major urological cancers: prostate cancer, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, muscle-invasive and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, renal cell carcinoma, penile cancer, and testicular cancer. Methods: Both simple and rephrased prompts were used to assess the impact of prompt engineering on response quality. All figures and tables from the English-language EAU guidelines were systematically converted into plain, structured text and peer reviewed by multidisciplinary experts before evaluating the LLM responses. Each response was independently rated by 9-11 uro-oncology specialists using a five-point Likert scale (1: incorrect/unacceptable, 5: optimal), resulting in 10,500 evaluations. Results: Claude achieved the highest overall accuracy, with 45.9% of responses rated as optimal (Likert 5) and 87% as optimal/acceptable (Likert 4-5). Tumor-specific performance peaked in muscle-invasive bladder (56.7% optimal, 93% optimal/acceptable), penile (49.5%, 95%), and testicular cancer (60.9%, 94%). Gemini and ChatGPT showed lower optimal rates but acceptable performance (68%-70% optimal/acceptable). Rephrased prompts did not consistently outperform simple versions. All models showed acceptable accuracy, but the results should be interpreted cautiously due to recency bias and fast LLM tech evolution. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the value of rigorous plain language adaptation and expert validation in benchmarking LLMs, supporting their potential as decision-support tools in uro-oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.